- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 14:51:33 +0100
- To: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
- Cc: "Haffner, Alexander" <A.Haffner@d-nb.de>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Haffner, Alexander <A.Haffner@d-nb.de> wrote: > >> However, back to the formats I don’t want to discuss J foaf doesn’t have the >> power to reflect our comprehensive data – I thought we want to make this >> high quality data available for the public –if so we should have a closer >> look modeling the data in FRBRer, FRAD and/or RDA in parallel to the SKOS >> representation. >> > I keep seeing this statement getting made: "FOAF/SKOS are not > expressive enough for our data" and I'm simply not buying it. > > Can somebody please back up this claim? FOAF defines personal and > organizational entities. SKOS defines concepts. > > Those are exactly the things we're describing. The design of RDF reflects this situation - typically no single RDF vocabulary captures all use cases and needs. If we can agree on the basic layout in terms of common classes, that gives a skeleton for interoperability, fleshed out (oh dear, excuse the metaphor) with more detailed precise properties from different application domains. So RDF is a design for sharing out the descriptive work... I'll repeat the earlier offer - if there are people/org/agent properties that are generally useful, and needed by several properties here, I'm happy getting them added to FOAF (if that's not treading on any FR** toes, of course). cheers, Dan
Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 13:52:06 UTC